Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[cremaster]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now folks, never again call the slippery slope arguement weak.

It’s weak because it has nothing to do with gay rights, not because polygamy isn’t potentially valid in its own right.

“Gay” rights? What happened to “equal” rights? “Equal” protection? And, I’m supposed to believe the consenting polygamists aren’t going to use the “privacy of our own bedroom” arguemenation? Basically, that they won’t try to piggy back gay marriage with many if not all of the same arguements? Consenting, of age, privacy in bedroom, equal protection, multiple partner “orientated,” opposed by “Polygamophobes”, denited their “nature,” present definition discriminates, blah, blah, blah.

And of course, they have the support of many of our pro-homo-marriage friends.

So, um, where’s the slippery slope arguement supposed to be weak? [/quote]

The polygamists have already a case forward in Canada. They explicitly reference the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning regarding gay marriage.

A great column by Davis Warren: Essays in Idleness

The polygamists were affiliated with Warren Jeffs, but broke away.

[Headhunter]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:

What’s a homophobe? Is that like a fecalphiliacphobe? Goatse-phobe? Basically, if you find it repulsive, you’re phobic?

Phobia is pretty applicable here. The main argument is that those supporting the ban are afraid gays getting married will somehow affect their marriage. They are afraid that what someone does, whom they will likely never encounter, will somehow degrade their own vows. Only fear can explain a thought process so irrational. There is obviously a religious component, but we live in a separated state so that doesn’t matter at all.

If someone is against gay marriage simply because they find it repulsive then they’re just plain dicks. Grow up and look the other way. There is always something in life that you’ll find gross. For example, I find intolerance repulsive.

[/quote]

So if I don’t want gays to trample on the sanctity of marriage its because of fear, but you being a supporter is based upon reason and wisdom. Yeah…okay…

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Sloth wrote:
who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.

Dude, check the hundreds of posts people like thunderbolt have made on just this point. They actually argue that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. This argument was specifically addressed (and rejected) by the Iowa Supreme Court just this week. [/quote]

As usual, incorrect - I have never, nor have I ever seen anyone, argue that the creation of gay marriage would affect their own marriage and/or their own vows taken. The argument is, as has been repeated a thousand times over, about the effect on marriage generally and going forward.

Maybe you could work on a second “PhD” in “reading comprehension”.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

The purpose of marriage is not to form a unit of reproduction. [/quote]

Incorrect. Marriage serves as a means, not an end - and it serves as a means to order the creation and raising of children. Society has no need to enact marriage that serves some other end.

[Headhunter]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.

Dude, check the hundreds of posts people like thunderbolt have made on just this point. They actually argue that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. This argument was specifically addressed (and rejected) by the Iowa Supreme Court just this week. [/quote]

I miss Thunderbolt and his epic beatdowns on you and the gay agenda. He left because the same irrationality that makes people gay makes them immune to accepting truth.

[Headhunter]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:

Sloth wrote:
who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.

Dude, check the hundreds of posts people like thunderbolt have made on just this point. They actually argue that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. This argument was specifically addressed (and rejected) by the Iowa Supreme Court just this week.

As usual, incorrect - I have never, nor have I ever seen anyone, argue that the creation of gay marriage would affect their own marriage and/or their own vows taken. The argument is, as has been repeated a thousand times over, about the effect on marriage generally and going forward.

Maybe you could work on a second “PhD” in “reading comprehension”.

[/quote]

He’s back!! Damn I missed you, Thunder!! All our IQs go up just reading your posts!

[thunderbolt23]

This decision is based on one bedrock idea - “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)

Forget the narrow interest of gay marriage - this speaks to a broader issue, one that tears down important walls of representative government. The Iowa court holds that the Equal Protection coverage needs to be “updated” every generation.

The court - of course - never elucidates how often the generation turnover is. Nor do they explain how they will divine the new attitudes of the new generation: polls? Voodoo? They never say. Nor do they explain how they would deal with legislation passed during a “generation” - which quite obviously represents the new attitudes of the generation, whichever direction they go - if that legislation is at odds with what new attitudes the court thinks are appropriate.

No answers to these tough questions, no principled direction in which to take them. These have nothing to do with gay marriage - but they are precisely the Pandora’s Box opened by courts like this one.

Do any of the Lefties in love with the decision have a satisfactory explanation to these questions? Of course not - they don’t worry about such problems. Everything must yield to “progress” - even the most sacred aspects of representative republican government.

Never forget that as much as Lefties advertise their support for “the people”, “the masses”, and the “common man”, it is nothing but a sham.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As usual, incorrect - I have never, nor have I ever seen anyone, argue that the creation of gay marriage would affect their own marriage and/or their own vows taken. The argument is, as has been repeated a thousand times over, about the effect on marriage generally and going forward.[/quote]

For unmarried people the two arguments are one and the same.

Read borrek’s post.

Maybe you could work on a second “PhD” in “reading comprehension”.

Maybe you could stop trying to deride people who made it to grad school. It makes you come off as an ass bitter about other people’s degrees.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:

The purpose of marriage is not to form a unit of reproduction.

Incorrect. Marriage serves as a means, not an end - and it serves as a means to order the creation and raising of children. Society has no need to enact marriage that serves some other end.[/quote]

Society has no need for marriage period. Marriage is not a means to creation because it is obvious that creation is exclusive of marriage. The role of marriage is not tied to children, as there are plenty of childless marriages that are every bit as valid as those bearing offspring. Were marriage a means and not an end, then those childless marriages would also be considered profane.

I’m not going to argue that a nuclear family is not best for a child, because I think that it is, however a heterosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as injurious to children as a homosexual nuclear family. A homosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as beneficial to children as a heterosexual nuclear family.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

For unmarried people the two arguments are one and the same.

Read borrek’s post.[/quote]

I was responding to Forlife’s direct assertion, made in Forlife’s post. Read up.

Maybe you could stop trying to deride people who made it to grad school. It makes you come off as an ass bitter about other people’s degrees.

You have it wrong - I don’t deride people who made it to grad school.

I deride people who, armed with an empty smugness, arrogantly advertise how educated they are to “score points” in their postings, only to fumble along like amateurish imbeciles, thus humiliating themselves and their claims of grandeur by being “educated”.

You know, people like you.

I am an unintentional fan of irony, and there is nothing more ironic than self-advterising “graduate students” or “PhD’s” who can’t even handle basic arguments and sloppily blunder their way through nonsense they are trying to pass off as “the Truth”.

It has nothing to do with bitterness - after all, you have no idea what level of education I personally have obtained.

Forlife couldn’t wait to boast about his PhD - all I am doing is holding him to the standard of someone who should be smart enough to make a good defense of his points, as he presumably would have in his dissertation. His grade? He flunked.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

Society has no need for marriage period. Marriage is not a means to creation because it is obvious that creation is exclusive of marriage. [/quote]

Incorrect. Society has a need for it, why otherwise would it exist?

That obvious point aside, society needs marriage for namy reasons already elucidated many times - it incentivizes the biological parents of a child to raise the child, it disincentivizes men from irresponsibility fathering children out of wedlock, etc.

The role of marriage is not tied to children, as there are plenty of childless marriages that are every bit as valid as those bearing offspring.

Incorrect. It most certainly is, and the existence of “childless marriages” does not prove that marriage isn’t about children. Those marriages are certainly valid, and still serve society’s needs.

Were marriage a means and not an end, then those childless marriages would also be considered profane.

No, because childless marriages still serve the ends - keeping contraints on relationships that could otherwise produce children. This has been covered at length.

I’m not going to argue that a nuclear family is not best for a child, because I think that it is, however a heterosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as injurious to children as a homosexual nuclear family. A homosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as beneficial to children as a heterosexual nuclear family.

Let’s be honest - you just made this up. There is no relationship better than a nuclear family that includes biological parents and offspring. That is not to say alternatives are categorically bad, but we have to start with the unassailable idea that no alternative is equal to that heterosexual nuclear arrangement.

Any arguments made for or against a “gay nuclear family” - which, by the way, is a contradiction in terms, you should know - must account for that fact.

[Turbo_Mysterio]

Let them marry and be happy. They are denying their pursuit of happiness, IMO, but yet again did that matter when millions were in chains? Fucking Christian, right winger pieces of shit.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:

Society has no need for marriage period. Marriage is not a means to creation because it is obvious that creation is exclusive of marriage.

Incorrect. Society has a need for it, why otherwise would it exist?
[/quote]

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

That obvious point aside, society needs marriage for namy reasons already elucidated many times - it incentivizes the biological parents of a child to raise the child, it disincentivizes men from irresponsibility fathering children out of wedlock, etc.

It is not the marriage itself that incentivizes the raising of the child. The choice to raise a child or not can be made regardless of marital status, and furthermore there is no penalty for being in a marriage and choosing not to raise a child.

The role of marriage is not tied to children, as there are plenty of childless marriages that are every bit as valid as those bearing offspring.

Incorrect. It most certainly is, and the existence of “childless marriages” does not prove that marriage isn’t about children. Those marriages are certainly valid, and still serve society’s needs.

Marriages simply do not exist to serve society. Marriage is a state, and not a function.

Were marriage a means and not an end, then those childless marriages would also be considered profane.

No, because childless marriages still serve the ends - keeping contraints on relationships that could otherwise produce children. This has been covered at length.

Again, the state of marriage itself does not constrain the relationship. It is the free will of the married party that is the constraint.

I’m not going to argue that a nuclear family is not best for a child, because I think that it is, however a heterosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as injurious to children as a homosexual nuclear family. A homosexual nuclear family has every chance to be just as beneficial to children as a heterosexual nuclear family.

Let’s be honest - you just made this up. There is no relationship better than a nuclear family that includes biological parents and offspring. That is not to say alternatives are categorically bad, but we have to start with the unassailable idea that no alternative is equal to that heterosexual nuclear arrangement.

The fact that a family is nuclear, does not by itself guarantee a healthy childhood.

Like you said, let’s start with the idea the a standard nuclear family has a possibility of being 100% healthy. What path can you take that down in order to deny equal protection under the law for gay couples?

[quote]
Any arguments made for or against a “gay nuclear family” - which, by the way, is a contradiction in terms, you should know - must account for that fact.[/quote]

You can get as semantic as you’d like, you know what I mean. Two parents, plus children. Maybe I should get a copyright on the term “Isotopic Family” and start printing t-shirts for the next rally.

Any argument can account for that fact, however everything beyond calling a nuclear family the 100% healthy choice is entirely subjective.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

Just expand the definition of the word marriage in your vocabulary and then proceed to mind your own business and everything will work itself out.

[Sloth]

[quote]borrek wrote:

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

[/quote]

This really needs spelling out?

You see, when two members of the opposite sex copulate, the potential for offspring is present. Now, having given birth, both biological parents are present and responsible for the care of our future citizens.

[borrek]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

This really needs spelling out?

You see, when two members of the opposite sex copulate, the potential for offspring is present. Now, having given birth, both biological parents are present and responsible for the care of our future citizens.

[/quote]

It is not the marriage that ensures both parents are present nor that they are responsible for the care of the offspring. Your insistence that this is a black and white affair does not make it a black and white affair.

[Sloth]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

This really needs spelling out?

You see, when two members of the opposite sex copulate, the potential for offspring is present. Now, having given birth, both biological parents are present and responsible for the care of our future citizens.

It is not the marriage that ensures both parents are present nor that they are responsible for the care of the offspring. Your insistence that this is a black and white affair does not make it a black and white affair.

[/quote]

You’re not going to pretend social norms and institutions don’t have an effect, are you?

[borrek]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

This really needs spelling out?

You see, when two members of the opposite sex copulate, the potential for offspring is present. Now, having given birth, both biological parents are present and responsible for the care of our future citizens.

It is not the marriage that ensures both parents are present nor that they are responsible for the care of the offspring. Your insistence that this is a black and white affair does not make it a black and white affair.

You’re not going to pretend social norms and institutions don’t have an effect, are you?[/quote]

When did I say they didn’t? We’re arguing about that effect.

Unwed couples are perfectly capable of being present and responsible for the care of their children. The children are at no disadvantage because the parents are not married.

Homosexual couples are just as capable of being present and responsible for the care of a child, the only difference being non-standard gender roles as a model. Gender roles are just about gone anyway. We all know working moms, or a stay at home dad.

A child need not be biological for a family to be cohesive and healthy, the child simply needs to be socially accepted.

[PB_Crawl]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.

This really needs spelling out?

You see, when two members of the opposite sex copulate, the potential for offspring is present. Now, having given birth, both biological parents are present and responsible for the care of our future citizens.

It is not the marriage that ensures both parents are present nor that they are responsible for the care of the offspring. Your insistence that this is a black and white affair does not make it a black and white affair.

You’re not going to pretend social norms and institutions don’t have an effect, are you?

When did I say they didn’t? We’re arguing about that effect.

Unwed couples are perfectly capable of being present and responsible for the care of their children. The children are at no disadvantage because the parents are not married.

Homosexual couples are just as capable of being present and responsible for the care of a child, the only difference being non-standard gender roles as a model. Gender roles are just about gone anyway. We all know working moms, or a stay at home dad.

A child need not be biological for a family to be cohesive and healthy, the child simply needs to be socially accepted.

[/quote]

exactly. Marriage only reinforces two parents stay together, not for some instinctual need to keep the genes going or raise offspring until they can survive on their own, but because a state marriage is partly a monetary contract, breaking that contract can result in loss of income, property, child payements, ect.

the incentives for state marriage today are monetary incentive, tax breaks, visitation rights, ect and keeping a partner exclusive.

the only social norm that involves parenting in marriage is the expectation for two people to get married when there is a child out of wedlock because the marriage will provide contractual restraints (economic ones and some secondary social ones)to keep both partners exclusive, ensuring that the two original parents remain in the childs life.

two parents regardless of sex will provide a better foundation than one simply because of increased economic security, availability of at least one parent to always be present, and a higher volume of family support systems ( double the grandparents, uncles, aunts around).

the current divorce rates are a pretty clear indicator that people don’t view marriage as means of child rearing.

[John_S1]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy?

Unless there’s objective evidence that polygamy is inherently harmful, what valid reason could you possibly have for opposing it?

Now folks, never again call the slippery slope arguement weak.[/quote]

It will continue to slip till everything is allowed. People will use this as an argument to get polygamy passed.

Marriage is not just in the bedroom marriage is very public, and to allow this perversion is wrong.